Hands-On: Zorin OS 8 Linux

Hands-On: Zorin OS 8 Linux

Summary: This is the distribution that is touted as the "easiest" transition from Windows to Linux, so how does it stack up?


 |  Image 6 of 6

  • Thumbnail 1
  • Thumbnail 2
  • Thumbnail 3
  • Thumbnail 4
  • Thumbnail 5
  • Thumbnail 6
  • Applications

    The Zorin OS 8.1 Core distribution, with the latest updates installed, includes:

    The Core distribution includes a good selection of application software and utilities:

    • Google Chrome 33.0
    • Mozilla Thunderbird 24.4
    • GIMP 2.8.6
    • Shotwell 0.15.0 (Photo Manager)
    • ImageMagick 6.7.7
    • LibreOffice
    • Noise (Music) 0.2.4
    • Videos (Totem) 3.8.2
    • OpenShot 1.4.3 (Video Editor)
    • WINE 1.6.1

    Using the Zorin Web Browser Manager you can also easily install:

    • Firefox 28.0
    • Opera 12.16
    • Midori 0.4.3

    Using the Software Centre or Synaptic, there are literally thousands of other packages available.

  • Zorin Dark

    Okay, one last screen shot and then a summary. In addition to the Zorin Look Changer mentioned previously, there is also a Zorin Theme Changer, which by default gives you a choice between 'Light' and 'Dark' themes. 

    The default, shown in all of the previous screen shots, is Light; the screen shot above is Dark. I suppose that there might be a way to add other themes, but I didn't notice it — there's nothing for that in the Theme Changer window, at least.

    How to summarise my impression of Zorin OS? I'm afraid that what I have written until now just seems relentlessly negative, and I don't mean for it to be that way. 

    It seems like a good distribution, and it has some nice, novel ideas included. The different "Looks", with different menu layouts and operation and a very easy way to switch between them is nice. 

    The Light/Dark theme switching is also a nice touch (although the Dark theme has gray text on a black background, which is nearly unreadable on my laptop). 

    The Zorin Web Browser Manager is also a good idea. It is based on Ubuntu, which is a good, solid foundation, and the developers are to be commended for maintaining both a current and an LTS release, that requires a significant amount of additional work.

    But something about it just doesn't sit right with me: maybe I just had the wrong expectations going in. 

    With all the hype about easy transition for Windows users, I was really expecting more than I got — a lot more. In my opinion (and my experience with a lot of family and friends), the biggest problem in getting ordinary users to move from Windows to Linux isn't really the desktop or user interface, it is the applications. 

    I don't recall that I have ever had someone tell me they couldn't/wouldn't use Linux because they couldn't figure out or deal with the desktop. It is always "I need Office", or "I need Photoshop" or whatever, any one of a long list of established Windows applications. 

    Now I know that there are good alternatives for pretty much all of those things on Linux, but Zorin doesn't seem to do any more than any other Linux distribution in this area — that list of applications on the previous page is similar to many other distributions. 

    The one thing it has preloaded which most others don't is WINE, so you could actually run most original Windows programs, but are Windows users trying to switch to Linux going to be able to figure that out?

    Even if you ignore the application issue, I don't even see the Zorin OS desktops as being close enough to Windows XP or Windows 7 to make the transition https://cms.zdnet.com/story/edit/7000027587/significantly easier than with many other Linux distribution. 

    Well, I guess I should qualify that: compared to KDE, Xfce, MATE and even LXDM, all of which have similar kinds of "panel at the bottom, menu button at the left end, icons and such at the right" layout. 

    The transition to Gnome 3 or Unity might be more difficult, since the basic concepts are different, but even then, how long does it take a reasonable user to figure that part out? The ones I have watched, or helped, take about a minute to say "Oh, okay", and that's that.

    Like I said, I don't want to be totally negative about Zorin OS. It looks good. It works well. It has some nice unique features. Considered on its own merits, it stacks up well against other Linux distributions. If it looks interesting to you, give it a try.

    Further reading

Topics: Linux, Open Source, Operating Systems

J.A. Watson

About J.A. Watson

I started working with what we called "analog computers" in aircraft maintenance with the United States Air Force in 1970. After finishing military service and returning to university, I was introduced to microprocessors and machine language programming on Intel 4040 processors. After that I also worked on, operated and programmed Digital Equipment Corporation PDP-8, PDP-11 (/45 and /70) and VAX minicomputers. I was involved with the first wave of Unix-based microcomputers, in the early '80s. I have been working in software development, operation, installation and support since then.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Related Stories


Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Flavor of the week

    This is why Linux can't be taken seriously.
    • Wrong

      It merely means that one should choose his distro with care.
      John L. Ries
      • No it means them them all

        out there and one will stick. That's OK for techies but you everyday computer user doesn't want to choose between double digit distro's.
        • Choice...

          Does your everyday computer user want to choose between double digit breakfast cereals? New cars? Fill in whatever everyday item you want here. The point is, it is called choice. It implies not being dictated to, about what operating system you use, or what desktop, or whatever else. If you are happy paying Microsoft for the privilege of having them take away your choice, then good for you. A lot of people are not.

          Thanks for reading and commenting

          • A choice without meaningful selection criteria ...

            ... is NO CHOICE AT ALL.

            Most people choose breakfast cereal by taste - and if they don't like it they find out in ten seconds and lose very little time or money for their trouble.

            If they liked their old car, they go back to the same brand. If they don't, they look at something else based upon color, appearance, features, reliability, and PRICE. After the first car, they know what they want and don't want based upon their experience. In general, all cars essnetially work the same way so the learning curve is negligible.

            The computer user knows only what they found with their last computer.

            Switching operating systems is much more complicated than switching cars. The learning curve for any new operating system can be staggering.

            Yes, all versions of Linux are "about the same" ... as are all versions of Windows (or Mac OS X) yet many, many, Windows users are complaining about the Metro UI (even though bypassing it is trivial).

            You think you will get these people to spend hours installing this (or any) flavor of Linux just to see if they MIGHT like it as much as they like Windows? Then expect them to follow the learning curve long enough to figure out what is "good" or "bad" about their choice?

            Until you can buy a Linux computer off-the-shelf from a big-box store with the various flavors of Linux, the typical consumer is never going to have the information they need to choose between those flavors.

            The only thing of which you can be sure with Linux is that, if it runs Firefox, the user can access the Internet and therefore use MS Office On-Line.

            Everything else is a crapshoot with a long learning curve.

            BTW, using Windows allows me to choose from more applications than any other platform, including nearly all open-source titles - as most of them were long ago ported from UNIX and Linux to Windows.

            In other words, the more you know, the more varied your choices. If you do not understand the more subtle trade-offs between operating systems, you have no basis on which to make a choice. This is certainly true of most consumers.

            You criticize Microsoft for limiting your choice of OS but you fail to recognize that Microsoft is offering simplicity in exchange for price - in addition to much more choice when it comes to applications.

            You ignore Apple altogether - who offers far less choice of applications in exchange for even more simplicity but for a much higher cost.
            M Wagner
          • EdUbuntu

            In the Grand Forks, North Dakota public schools the 5th graders use Netbooks (mostly ASUS) running EdUbuntu. If kids can navigate a new OS easily (my grandson is on his most of the time!) don't you think us "duffers" should give Linux the old "college try" before condemning it?

            BTW, the netbooks were SUPPLIED with Linux installed. Each of the Linux distros I've installed were up and running in about 10-15 minutes from install to going online. XP always took at least 45 minutes and didn't always find all of the hardware drivers. Just my experience.
        • You don't have to know about all of them to make a choice

          Try out two or three that you've heard of and if you like one of them, install it (live CDs are good for that); if after doing that you want to keep looking, then you may. Or you could simply try one on a friend's recommendation (or based on reviews like this one); if you don't like it, try another one.

          On the whole, I think most people prefer more choices to fewer, or none.
          John L. Ries
          • Some merit to that sentiment in general,...

            ...but not really applicable to the preponderance of consumers in the context of "choosing" an OS. Most people buy computing hardware (whether that be desktop, laptop, tablet, phablet, smartphone, etc.) to DO something, not to figure out how to make it do whatever it is they want to do.

            Windows has succeeded in large part because it was introduced at the right time and was able to greatly influence the expectations and experiences of personal and enterprise computing. Today, its dominance continues largely due to the momentum and inertia established over the last 25 years or so.

            That's not to imply its the "best" OS, or that they are immune to challenge. It does mean that they have the bankroll and time to continually tweak the formula. Everyone seems to think MS needs to do something earth-shattering in order to remain relevant, but that plainly isn't the case and, frankly, isn't good business. I cite Win8 as proof. The biggest critique is that it changes too much from past experiences.

            The error in logic with your suggestion (and Mr. Watson's above) is that you start from a flawed premise - that people really _do_ want more choices in an OS. A very small subset of the population does. Most don't -they just want to be able to turn on an appliance and do what they want to do.

            That's why Linux (and other contenders) will remain solidly in the category of "hobby" industry until either A) MS performs some colossally huge error that simultaneously alienates both consumer and enterprise markets (extremely unlikely) or B) the contenders develop an offering that is _at least_ as easy and compatible, AND offers some other significant incentive to move, whether that be cost or feature.

            And, as Mr. Watson's experience clearly illustrates, this distro ain't it. And as a "bonus suggestion" to those in the Linux camp - you can forget about any significant consumer penetration as long as there is any requirement to know (or care) that "su" is something other than mom's first name, or that "sudo" isn't some martial arts variant.
          • Agreed, but misses my point

            I agree with almost everything you said. On the order of 99%. I cling to some frail hope that either Windows 8 will prove to be the "colossal blunder", or it it is indicative of the direction MS is moving, to even larger blunders.

            But your comment misses the point of what I said above. I was replying to the comment about "users don't want to choose between double-digit options", I don't think that is the problem at all. Users can and will choose between almost any number of options, when they want/need to. But I think you are right, consumers until now have clearly shown that they don't want to "choose" an operating system, period. From one from ten or more, or one from three, or even one of two. None. Only recently has Android, and iOS, and Chromebooks started chip away at that, and make people aware that they even CAN choose, and that it might be worthwhile to choose.

            But even that might be an illusion - are the consumers really "choosing" to buy Android or Chromebooks, or is it nothing more than the price that is driving that choice? Android phones are much less expensive than iPhones, and Chromebooks are much less expensive than PCs or Macs...

            If that is the case, then the only "benefit" of this for Linux in the market is that it is making people aware that there is a choice, and showing that Linux and derivatives actually have a lot to offer.

            Oh, and I also agree, if using a Linux system requires knowledge of Linux CLI commands, whether it be su, sudo or whatever, then it will not succeed in the mass market.

            Thanks for reading and commenting.

          • Kudos

            While we may not agree on the desirability/utility of a MS colossal blunder (myself, I'd rather see that they continually improve under pressure from competition, which I think they are - just not fast enough), I do want to applaud your efforts as a worthy, fair-minded and articulate Linux advocate.
          • Windows 8 might just be that blunder...

            ...as Mr. Watson also indicates. And that _does_ play directly in to choice vs. no choice as well. Each Windows version requires 'relearning' Windows all over again, which can be EXTREMELY difficult for the light home user (I'm not talking teens or folks who work on a PC for a living). Case in point: We just replaced my mother-in-law's XP with Windows 8. I, being the 'computer guy' (I'm a programmer by profession), was tasked with easing her in the transition. However, EVERYTHING changed in Windows 8. How much frustration do you think there was when both of us were learning ('all I want to do is send email, Chuck').
            Case in point #2: I frequently help friends and relatives troubleshoot problems remotely. Tell me, Windows proponents, how you access network settings in a) XP; b) Vista, c) Windows 7, d) Windows 8.
            Ditto for adding printers, user accounts, and SO MANY other things.
            In my experience, once you pick a distro, you can stay with it ad nauseum without these huge paradigm shifts of how to do things.
          • Agree in principle...

            ...but I think you both overstate the degree of change (Win8 notwithstanding) and understate the relevant timelines. For most consumers (and even most businesses), they buy a piece of hardware, and run the included OS until the hardware dies, or until they _need_ some functionality/software that's not available on a current OS.

            And generally speaking, each iteration of Windows _has_ been better than the last, from a consumer perspective (again, Win8 notwithstanding). Most of the trouble with Win OS upgrades happen when you start to get "under the covers".

            I do wonder why you moved your M-I-L from XP to Win8 without, it would seem, any advance anticipation of the key differences, or how to take advantage of configurations that allow you to essentially bypass most of the glaring changes? It's fairly well-documented at this point. Or you could have bypassed the issue entirely and just migrated to Win7.

            As to your case #2, isn't that what the manufacturer/OEM is for? Again, most of the things you describe are 'under the covers' and don't impinge regularly on the day-to-day of the consumer (e.g., how often do you actually need to set up a new user?). Your frustration is understandable, from a tech "insider's" perspective, but you have apparently volunteered your services. You can't fault MS for changes to their product because your life is made more difficult (well - you can, but it isn't justifiable).

            It is possible to argue the finer points of "improvement" vs. "change for change sake", but it would appear that it isn't a big enough issue in the mind of the consumer to have driven them away from Windows en masse. And, as I said in my previous post, MS has the bankroll and time to tweak the formula. Win8 flopped, but Win8.1 shows that they listened and are making adjustments (again - probably not fast enough for many).
          • Two Minor Objections

            Again, I see your point and agree on some things, but I have two objections.

            "Each iteration of Windows has been better than the last" - I strongly disagree with this statement. Try to get someone at Microsoft to say the word "Vista". They will behave as if their tongue will turn to stone and break off if they try to say it. Further, the magnitude of their screw-up with Windows 8 tells me that they didn't learn anything from the Vista experience.

            "Win 8.1 shows that they are listened" - I mildly disagree. I suppose you could say that they listened, but not for the correct reasons. They listened to the bad publicity, negative reviews, and the fact that Windows 8 was selling even worse than Vista did - but I don't think they ever accepted the fact that Win8 is a disaster, they still assume that the rest of the world is simply wrong. If they didn't, then Windows 8.1 would have done something more than bring back a "Start" button that does nothing other than take the user to the generally despised "Start Screen", as just one small example.

            Thanks again for reading and commenting, and interesting discussion.

          • Vista

            I think the lesson that to be learned from Vista is that MS needed to take a stronger role in directing OEMs and/or becoming more involved in the hardware (perhaps leading to the Surface line??). Vista itself wasn't bad per se from a consumer feature/functionality perspective _on the right hardware_. The problem is that MS finished the product, dusted their hands and expected OEMs to ensure decent performance/compatible hardware.

            There are similar parallels with Win8 in that it was designed for touch-enabled hardware, but works really well (from a resource utilization aspect) on older hardware. Consumers that upgraded quickly discovered that the default configuration was kludgy for the traditional desktop, and MS failed to anticipate that backlash. I'll make absolutely no argument that they didn't (again) blow the message and fail to set expectations.

            However, I think the overall direction is correct. The future of the PC OS won't be keyboard and mouse, at least not as we know them now. Yes - they'll be around for a good long while yet, but arguably due more to inertia than requirement.

            At this point, I think we are seeing the fruition of the Chinese proverb/curse, "may you live in interesting times". The next 2-3 years will undoubtedly be "interesting" in the OS/hardware market.
          • Windows XP pre-dates most network features ...

            ... available today. Thus those features have been "tacked on" to the original code, and therefore much more complicated to use. Since Vista, most all of these network settings are in the same place.

            Linux is, for all intents ad purposes, a UNIX clone and, as such, is an EXCELLENT operating system but it requires an IT professional to learn to use. Asking the typical consumer to make the transition from Windows is extremely naïve.
            M Wagner
          • well here is your issue than

            if you do not know
            [QUOTE] "how you access network settings in a) XP; b) Vista, c) Windows 7, d) Windows 8.
            Ditto for adding printers, user accounts" [\QUOTE]

            in all version of windows you can use control panel to do any and all of the things you asked for.

            starting from win 95 the procedure is always "Start>Contorl Pannel> any feature you need"
            there are some short-cuts you can take though.
            to change network setting you can right click on the net icon in the task bar and go into properties.

            for printers there is a devices and printer menu item in the start menu that existed from win95 and up.
            new users can be added from control panel or by right-clicking on my-computer and choosing manage or type add user in run bar etc.

            my issue with Linux is the fact that there are so many differences in how you do things between distros that is confising to say the least.

            and to expect average user to learn all that is unreasonable.

            I am however is on the path to switching all my PCs to Linux and having a very difficult time of it.
            some distor does not work on my laptop, some do not work on my desktop (I do not mean they do not work but that they do not work well)
            I can install it and run it but some of the distros are too slow(mind you I have an AMD dual-core 2gHz+ laptop with 4GB ram. nothing to sneeze at )
            my nVidia card is not properly supported and can not find a good driver for it. my WiFi is not working. many issues. can not connect to my file server shares directly as I could in windows.
            windows simply find all network stuff and let me choose where I want to go right out of the box.
            why Linux can not do the same, especially if my file server is Linux based.

            and for any proponents of CLI out there no it is not easier and/or better.
            I hated DOS for that, why would I want to do this now when a nice GUI based systems exists and readily available?
            that is why I gave up Linux 20 years ago. it wasn't ready.
            now 20 years later it came along way. but still not 100% ready for many average users.
            but not all of this is Linux fault per say.
            hardware manufactures need to embrace the notion of Linux existence and provide drivers for linux or at the very least API to the open-source community for the drivers to be developed. many applications company need to do similar things to at least expand their base to linux users. so we could have a PhotoShop for Linux instead of Gimp. (not sure which is better and don't care. let the actual users decide if they want to pay for photoshop on Linux or use Gimp for me Gimp will do, for a professional photoshop might be the only option)

            I am moving to Linux because for me it might be an option. I am knowledgeable enough to make the switch. my neighbor is not.
          • Actually....

            ...that's why Windows continues to be dominant. And as long as MS makes no effort to enforce that dominance, I have no objections. And there's no logical reason for those who want to go with the default to object to availability of choices for others.

            If you don't want to try out hundreds of Linux distros, then don't (few people do). If you want to stick with the Windows preloaded on your machine, then by all means. But stop being so concerned about the software choices of others. It really, truly, isn't a moral issue.
            John L. Ries
          • Apologies if I offended...

            ...but not sure where you got the impression I'm opposed to choice, or where I dictated that Windows is (or should be) the only viable OS. I'm not pushing any agenda. I simply was expressing what most OS advocates fail to acknowledge and/or consider - the average consumer "really, truly" doesn't care. All the noise, fury and speculation generated among the "technocrati" doesn't impinge on the larger market reality. It may flavor it, certainly, but doesn't drive it.

            Contrary to perceived slight you think I inflicted, I could honestly care less about the software choice of others (unless, of course, it affects me in some way), but it's counter-productive to the FOSS movement to wear the "but it's technically better" blinders. Joe Plumber doesn't _want_ to know anything about "technically better". He just wants to do what he do...

            FWIW - I run a Win7x64 work desktop (company mandated), Win8.1 home "work" desktop (for ease of integration with work-related activities) and an Ubuntu "family" laptop, which has worked reasonably well for email/browsing needs, but lost a serious degree of credibility as a viable OS contender when I had to research CLI commands/procedures just to upgrade Adobe Reader plugin.
          • Good post!

            M Wagner
        • Did you know

          That if you stick to the most highly used distros, the choice becomes quite reasonable? Here are the top 10 by page ranking last month:
          1 Mint 3875>
          2 Ubuntu 2053>
          3 Debian 1860<
          4 Mageia 1618>
          5 Fedora 1462<
          6 openSUSE 1387>
          7 Arch 1024>
          8 PCLinuxOS 1022<
          9 elementary 976>
          10 Manjaro 935<
          Iman Oldgeek